Race would be Clinton's in winner-take-all format

Using methods of electoral college, Republicans would alter Democrats race

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- The question gets asked from time to time: why don't Democrats abandon their presidential selection process for a more decisive -- and swifter -- winner-take-all system?

It's probably something Sen. Hillary Clinton is asking herself right now. Under such a format, the 2008 Democratic nomination probably would have been sewn up this past week - and it would have been hers.

'The Democrats have developed a delegate allocation system that is so fair, it's unfair.'
Larry Sabato, University of Virginia's Center for Politics

Clinton's recent landslide victory in the West Virginia primary would have put her over the top, raising the question of whether Democrats may seek to overhaul the primary system. Based on meticulous proportional representation, there are rumblings that some will seek reform to more closely resemble the quicker Republican method, or even the national electoral-college system.

"The Democrats have developed a delegate allocation system that is so fair, it's unfair," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Based on the states won by each of the candidates, Clinton would have gotten a total of 2,049 pledged delegates and superdelegates after the West Virginia primary, while rival Sen. Barack Obama would have 1,752.

There are several caveats: for one, the larger totals assume that all the superdelegates would vote precisely in line with pledged delegates under a winner-take-all system. Realistically, it's more likely that Clinton - who collected a large number of superdelegates early in the election season - might have gone over the 2,026 threshold prior to West Virginia had she gained momentum in the primaries under a winner-take-all system.

On the other hand, both sets of totals also assume that Texas's 193 pledged delegates and 35 superdelegates would go to Clinton, since she won the popular vote in that state's primary. Obama, however, won the state's caucuses as part of Texas' "two-step" selection process and actually ended up with more delegates.

As it stands now, Obama is on the verge of winning the nomination with 1,895 delegates and superdelegates, while Clinton has 1,718.

Winning by losing

Wesley Little, an economics student from Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va., recently computed how the race would stand under a winner-take-all system in an article for Sabato's web site. He noted that in many states, the losing candidate often ends up with nearly the same number of delegates.

The current race is so tight that in a couple of instances, the losing candidate has won more delegates. In Texas, Obama took five more delegates overall because he won the state's March 5 caucuses by a larger margin even though he lost the popular vote in a primary.

And in Nevada in January, Clinton had 51% of the caucus votes to Obama's 45%. By virtue of how that state apportions delegates, though, Obama ended up with one delegate more than Clinton.

"Obviously, the Clinton campaign wishes they could call for [winner-take-all]," Little said.

It turns out that some Clinton aides reportedly thought such a system existed. Time Magazine said in an article earlier this month that former chief strategist Mark Penn thought Clinton would win the election by Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 since she was expected to take California and its 370 pledged delegates. Clinton did take California, but ended up with only 204 of those delegates under the party's proportional system.

The chances of Democrats converting to a full-fledged, winner-take-all system, though, are probably less than zero. In the wake of stormy conventions in decades past, the party has made a mission out of making the process as fair as possible, Sabato says.

"Proportional representation is the mantra," he said. "It's the 11th commandment."

Origins in Chicago

The Democrats' current philosophy had its origins in 1968, during the party's tumultuous convention in Chicago. Punctuated by anti-war protests and rioting, the convention also was noted for nominating then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey even though he had not entered a single primary that year.

Picking a Democratic candidate was complicated by the fact that incumbent Lyndon Johnson opted not to run again in the face of the anti-war movement, and Sen. Robert Kennedy was killed just as his candidacy was gaining a head of steam. But it was party bosses holding sway over the selection process that got the blame for picking Humphrey.

Shortly after Humphrey lost to Republican Richard Nixon that fall, Democrats looked for ways to reform and developed a more representational system that placed higher value on primary results.

By the time Jimmy Carter first ran in 1976, the system was smoother. That was upset four years later, though, when Carter's troubled presidency was challenged by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy lobbied with delegates at that year's convention to switch and nominate him, since the incumbent appeared to be faltering under the weight of foreign policy and domestic economic failures.

Carter eventually lost to Republican Ronald Reagan, and the party created superdelegates that could come in and shift the nomination in another direction if a candidate's shortcomings were not rooted out in the primaries.

Reform reprise?

The 1968 and 1980 Democratic races were tighter than usual, pointing out problems with the system, analysts say. This year could bring about a repeat, since the Clinton-Obama matchup is so close and some inequities in proportional representation are rising to the surface. But are Democrats ready to make such a move?

"Right now, we're really focused on winning in November," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacy Paxson. Paxson did point out, though, that the party is free to change its rules after the election, unlike Republicans who must vote on new initiatives at their convention this summer.

Sabato says it's unlikely the Democrats will change anything if the party takes the general election. There will be no need for a back-to-the-drawing-board mentality should Obama take the nomination and go on to defeat presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.

But Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist, isn't so sure. Democrats seem likely to initiate some measure of reform, since the race is highlighting shortcomings, he added.

One idea is to apportion district-by-district delegates on a winner-take-all basis; another is to dole out "bonus delegates" to candidates for winning a state's popular vote.

"I think we'd be stark raving mad not to look at this thing and consider reforming the way we nominate a president," he said. "I think you'll see another movement this time."

Intraday Data provided by SIX Financial Information and subject to terms of use.
Historical and current end-of-day data provided by SIX Financial Information. Intraday data
delayed per exchange requirements. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM) from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All quotes are in local exchange time. Real time last sale data provided by NASDAQ. More
information on NASDAQ traded symbols and their current financial status. Intraday
data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM)
from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. SEHK intraday data is provided by SIX Financial Information and is
at least 60-minutes delayed. All quotes are in local exchange time.